Recalled/Assigned: Philip Broberg Recalled & Markus Niemelainen Sent to Bako 11/25/22

[Garbo Man]

Me? You're kidding. haha. Fair comment.

All this World Cup action today has fired me up like Herdman. heh

All good my guy shit happens We all get fired up from time to time

 

[Cloned]

Kesselring is better than both…too bad he’s a RD.

 

[Fourier]

I never use "advanced stats" grab a clue.

The advanced stats the poster is using, and many of the type have not been substantiated, proofed, validated and these metrics are devised mostly by people not even with a background/education in statistics so that theres methodological problems as well.

With the exception of xG% and PDO the stats that were quoted don't need to be validated. They are a tabulation of what happened while he was on the ice. Fenwick for example is simply shot attempts that are not blocked.

The HDCF% reflects where the shots are coming from combined with how the shot was initiated.

Natural Stat Trick - Glossary

www.naturalstattrick.com

There is a lot of decent statistical evidence to back up the claim that shots that are classified as HDCF are more likely to end up in goals than other shots. It's not an exact science but it does have real statistical evidence behind it. If you want some clear and easy to find evidence of this look at goalies sv% vs HDSV%.

Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick

www.naturalstattrick.com

Last year Shesterkin had the best 5 vs 5 HDSV% at .883 amongst goalies with at least 500 minutes. His overall 5 vs 5 sv% was .936. Demko was at .852 vs . 932. Hellebyuck was .919 vs .831. This means that for these three goalies a shot that was classified as HDCF was twice as likely to result in a goal as a generic shot.

Now what is not true is that you can isolate Niemo's individual impact on these stats. The stats don't tell you explicitly that he was at fault, but they do make a pretty compelling case that when Niemo is on the ice the play is decidedly in the Oilers zone and that there is danger for the goalie. The on ice save % of 94% given the high HDCA rate means that he has benefit of solid play by the goaltenders while he was on the ice together with the benefit of playing against guys who don't score a lot. This is not really sustainable. Last year there were only 7 players in the NHL who played 400 minutes or more with a 94% or better on ice save percentage. Only 5 defensemen had an on on ice save percentage of 93% or above.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

Kesselring is better than both…too bad he’s a RD.

I bet if you gave him a left handed stick, he could still make a better pass than either of these players.

 

[Drivesaitl]

With the exception of xG% and PDO the stats that were quoted don't need to be validated. They are a tabulation of what happened while he was on the ice. Fenwick for example is simply shot attempts that are not blocked.

The HDCF% reflects where the shots are coming from combined with how the shot was initiated.

Natural Stat Trick - Glossary

www.naturalstattrick.com

There is a lot of decent statistical evidence to back up the claim that shots that are classified as HDCF are more likely to end up in goals than other shots. It's not an exact science but it does have real statistical evidence behind it. If you want some clear and easy to find evidence of this look at goalies sv% vs HDSV%.

Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick

www.naturalstattrick.com

Last year Shesterkin had the best 5 vs 5 HDSV% at .883 amongst goalies with at least 500 minutes. His overall 5 vs 5 sv% was .936. Demko was at .852 vs . 932. Hellebyuck was .919 vs .831. This means that for these three goalies a shot that was classified as HDCF was twice as likely to result in a goal as a generic shot.

Now what is not true is that you can isolate Niemo's individual impact on these stats. The stats don't tell you explicitly that he was at fault, but they do make a pretty compelling case that when Niemo is on the ice the play is decidedly in the Oilers zone and that there is danger for the goalie. The on ice save % of 94% given the high HDCA rate means that he has benefit of solid play by the goaltenders while he was on the ice together with the benefit of playing against guys who don't score a lot. This is not really sustainable. Last year there were only 7 players in the NHL who played 400 minutes or more with a 94% or better on ice save percentage. Only 5 defensemen had an on on ice save percentage of 93% or above.

We've had the convo countless times. The sport of hockey is incredibly complex and hard to quantify. So that the attempts to break hockey down are as I stated not validated. They are tools, metrics, we don't know how much they really mean. We also don't know about interobserver reliability of the stats, standardization, counting errors or even counting bias. We're talking about a league that can barely tally SOG somewhat adequately or accurately.

Anyway that said its not something I'm going to look further into. I enjoy the sport of hockey. I don't enjoy spending any time on hockey analytics. Thanks for your time.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

We've had the convo countless times. The sport of hockey is incredibly complex and hard to quantify. So that the attempts to break hockey down are as I stated not validated. They are tools, metrics, we don't know how much they really mean. We also don't know about interobserver reliability of the stats, standardization, counting errors or even counting bias. We're talking about a league that can barely tally SOG somewhat adequately or accurately.

Anyway that said its not something I'm going to look further into. I enjoy the sport of hockey. I don't enjoy spending any time on hockey analytics. Thanks for your time.

Theres enough data out there over the years to detect a pattern.

 

[Fourier]

We've had the convo countless times. The sport of hockey is incredibly complex and hard to quantify. So that the attempts to break hockey down are as I stated not validated. They are tools, metrics, we don't know how much they really mean. We also don't know about interobserver reliability of the stats, standardization, counting errors or even counting bias. We're talking about a league that can barely tally SOG somewhat adequately or accurately.

Anyway that said its not something I'm going to look further into. I enjoy the sport of hockey. I don't enjoy spending any time on hockey analytics. Thanks for your time.

As always it all depends on what you are trying to understand. This is where you need to recognize what these stats can and cannot tell you. If I said that the "Oilers get outshot regularly" you don't need to validate the shots stats because they clearly measure exactly what you need to verify or deny the claim. Now of course there could be a small error in tabulation but it is highly unlikely that this would skew the numbers enough to alter the conclusion. Especially since small random errors will tend to even out over time.

In this case, the claim was that the Oilers got "caved in" when Niemo was on the ice. This is something that the sorts of stats being quoted can actually address accurately which was the point of my post. But if you use them to say "Niemo is bad defensively", then you have work to do because they do not really isolate the individual without looking at more context. They can provide evidence in support of this later sort of statement, but that evidence can often melt under additional analysis.

I have said this before but when I use numbers I do so with a clear view of what their limitations would be. I have been as critical of inappropriate use of all stats, advanced or not as anyone here. I also have a healthy appreciation for the "saw him good" point of view. But what we "see" is also very subjective. Moreover, our memory of what we saw is also often inaccurate. The key is to use all tools at your disposal to tell the most accurate story.

 

[Drivesaitl]

As always it all depends on what you are trying to understand. This is where you need to recognize what these stats can and cannot tell you. If I said that the "Oilers get outshot regularly" you don't need to validate the shots stats because they clearly measure exactly what you need to verify or deny the claim. Now of course there could be a small error in tabulation but it is highly unlikely that this would skew the numbers enough to alter the conclusion. Especially since small random errors will tend to even out over time.

In this case, the claim was that the Oilers got "caved in" when Niemo was on the ice. This is something that the sorts of stats being quoted can actually address accurately which was the point of my post. But if you use them to say "Niemo is bad defensively", then you have work to do because they do not really isolate the individual without looking at more context. They can provide evidence in support of this later sort of statement, but that evidence can often melt under additional analysis.

I have said this before but when I use numbers I do so with a clear view of what their limitations would be. I have been as critical of inappropriate use of all stats, advanced or not as anyone here. I also have a healthy appreciation for the "saw him good" point of view. But what we "see" is also very subjective. Moreover, our memory of what we saw is also often inaccurate. The key is to use all tools at your disposal to tell the most accurate story.

tbh I'm not following this distinction. I took the one to be the other in terms of the other posters comments. I mean in fairness that poster was positing Nemo shouldn't even be seeing the ice.

The other poster was saying that Nemo was so bad he was being "caved in" on ice which to me reads as saying equal or worse than "Nemo is bad defensively" The poster was trying to posit that Nemo and Kulak were some kind of black holes.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

tbh I'm not following this distinction. I took the one to be the other in terms of the other posters comments. I mean in fairness that poster was positing Nemo shouldn't even be seeing the ice.

The other poster was saying that Nemo was so bad he was being "caved in" on ice which to me reads as saying equal or worse than "Nemo is bad defensively" The poster was trying to posit that Nemo and Kulak were some kind of black holes.

Since you're not a fan of advanced stats.

When niemo is on the ice at 5on5, the oilers are giving up 36 shots per 60. This is while facing fairly sheltered usage.

The only one even in the same realm as him is Kulak giving up almost 37. And Kulak hasn't been good this year at all.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Since you're not a fan of advanced stats.

When niemo is on the ice at 5on5, the oilers are giving up 36 shots per 60. This is while facing fairly sheltered usage.

The only one even in the same realm as him is Kulak giving up almost 37. And Kulak hasn't been good this year at all.

Sure, but any spot usage of a player that is only seen in certain circumstances we ought to know what those are. For instance Nemo has been in 15 games. He missed the early season positive spell when the team was winning that the other players got.

Nemo didn't even play 10mins in a game this season until the end of October. The Oilers have been mired in a slump much of the time he's been up with the club or getting appreciable minutes, and not because of him. Indeed Nemo gets brought up or used more when the club is struggling.

A full 10/15 games that Nemo has been up has been during the latest 3-7 stretch. Thats going to impact any counting numbers.

Thats the difficulty with trying to discern so much, so early, when the stats are not designed to be used with such limited sample. Or if they are used they are still not substantive. Normal variance and random effects are not isolated in short samples. Its why no conclusions can be drawn from such sample. Thus my responding in the thread.

 

[Fourier]

tbh I'm not following this distinction. I took the one to be the other in terms of the other posters comments. I mean in fairness that poster was positing Nemo shouldn't even be seeing the ice.

The other poster was saying that Nemo was so bad he was being "caved in" on ice which to me reads as saying equal or worse than "Nemo is bad defensively" The poster was trying to posit that Nemo and Kulak were some kind of black holes.

"Niemo is bad defensivley" and the "Oilers got caved in while he was on the ice" are two different statements. They are related and the same stats can be used as evidence in support of both statements. But the first statement can be much more dicey to really "prove" using the stats presented in these posts while the second statement can be addressed much more definitively. An extreme example would be having Chris Pronger play a season with 4 junior level teammates. No matter how good he might be that five man unit will get "caved in".

The larger the sample size and the more context you can add to the stats the more relevant they could be in addressing claim one. For example, when you look at JP's advanced stats, one thing you see is that in almost all situations when he is on the ice the team's defensive numbers improve. This seems to be true across roles and linemates. In contrast, his offensive stats tend to vary significantly with role and teammates. So while not definitive, to use the same stats as quoted previously to say that JP does something right defensively when he is on the ice does seem to have strong evidence backing it up. In Niemo's case, the sample size is still relatively small to comfortably tie his advanced stats to him explicitly.

 

[Aerchon]

Since you're not a fan of advanced stats.

When niemo is on the ice at 5on5, the oilers are giving up 36 shots per 60. This is while facing fairly sheltered usage.

The only one even in the same realm as him is Kulak giving up almost 37. And Kulak hasn't been good this year at all.

Only an indirect comment but.

Many on these boards are talking about missing Keith. Eye test Keith was worse than Niem or Kulak for at least the first half of last year.

Eye test again. Neither Niem or Kulak are the ones "regularly" losing coverage and giving up grade AAA chances.

Not a popular narrative around here but the forwards are lost in our own end and are swarming opponents leaving guys wide open, getting caught puck watching, and are generally just being brutal in our own zone.

Draisaitl, McDavid, Pulj... all the forwards just look lost on most the grade AAA chance going against the Oilers.

I really dont think Niem or Kulak are "problems", team defense is brutal and Campbell also has not been helping overall although I dont think he is a big problem either, in comparison to the forwards.

Question: Is 36 shots per 60 terrible league wide, and how many of them are considered "high danger'? Just looking for some context.

I don't have a single player that is playing so sub-par that I want them publicly flogged for it, yet. It seems like the whole team takes turns shitting the bed to my eyes.